CIT skeptics finally admit north side approach is possible after all!

Originally posted by justamomma

1.) How many testimonies are you using IN THEIR ENTIRETY???

All of them.

2.) HOW many testimonies are you using only bits and pieces from??

None of them.

3.) How many testimonies, specifically, do you NOT use (not asking why you don't, just how many)?

None.

4.) Who is picking and choosing the testimonies to be used and discarded, and among those that are being used, who is picking the bits and pieces from those testimonies to be used?

That is not happening.

Lie, Lie, Lie, and uhm, Lie!

What about the people who saw the plane fly into the building Craig?? Why is their testimony not being used to help aid you in your theory? Come on now... You get a big F in trying to pull the wool over some of our eyes. When ppl use deception, typically they have a way of trying to cover it, ya know.

reply to post by justamomma


All of the witnesses we present BELIEVE the plane hit the building and we did not hide that or remove that from their accounts so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please read our mission statement on our website.

You will see how we clearly spell out that we only report information that we have personally obtained and refuse to assume that previous reports from mainstream OR alternative media are correct.

No details from any of the information we have independently obtained have been manipulated or omitted.

Everything has been reported in full.

If you have evidence indicating this isn't true please present it otherwise I request that you refrain from making baseless accusations against my credibility.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITAll of the witnesses we present BELIEVE the plane hit the building and we did not hide that or remove that from their accounts so I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you have evidence indicating this isn't true please present it otherwise I request that you refrain from making baseless accusations against my credibility.

Have read your cute mission statement... that was right before my nap time the other day

BELIEVE is implying that YOU don't believe they saw it right. If I am to take your word on that craig, then I don't believe that they saw the plane flying in quite where they thought they did. In fact, maybe we all just BELIEVE that day happened when in fact it was world deception by our government. maybe we were all in a trance and were drugged globally.

There is more testimony that the plane flew into the building than there is testimony for your little pieced together theory. Your jedi mind tricks don't work on me brotha YOu are wrong. You are not logical and I will keep saying it until you finally admit it

[edit on 29-9-2008 by justamomma]

SERIOUSLY!!! You are a piece of work, you know this, right? at least admit you KNOW THIS!!! How can you say in one sentence that they "BELIEVE" they saw it going into the pentagon and then in the next that you believe the part where they say they saw it flying in conjunction with where YOU want to believe they saw it fly. You make no sense and to some of us who can actually think for ourselves, you are a laughing stock. Do you really not see this fact???

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITAll of the witnesses we present BELIEVE the plane hit the building and we did not hide that or remove that from their accounts so I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you have evidence indicating this isn't true please present it otherwise I request that you refrain from making baseless accusations against my credibility.

Have read your cute mission statement... that was right before my nap time the other day

BELIEVE is implying that YOU don't believe they saw it right. If I am to take your word on that then, craig, then I don't believe that they saw the plane flying in quite where they thought they did. In fact, maybe we all just BELIEVE that day happened when in fact it was world deception by our government. maybe we were all in a trance and were drugged globally.

There is more testimony that the plane flew into the building than there is testimony for your little pieced together theory. Your jedi mind tricks don't work on me brotha

YOu are wrong. You are not logical and I will keep saying it until you finally admit it

Whereas I agree that, from these witness statement alone, I cannot see anything to definitively imply that the craft in question did not impact, there is still more than enough evidence to show that the flight that may or may not have impacted did come from a flightpath that contradicts the official story. There is more valid testimony (that is independantly collected eyewitness testimony from impartial witnesses) that the flight came northside than there is to say that the flight came southside. The use of unsubstantiated rhetoric or belittling smalltalk does not refute this in the slightest.

What is not logical is to say that you accept the witness testimony of the impact, but not of the flightpath.

I realise that CIT has at least one witness to a plane flying away, Roosevelt Roberts, but since he has allegedly retracted, if not his story, then the CIT's right to publish it then this cannot be used as much more than hearsay.

This still does not refute the northside flightpath which, alone, is damning evidence towards a conspiracy and coverup.

reply to post by almighty bob


I don't base what happened on the witness testimonies. I base it on the evidence that is there showing a plane crashed into the pentagon. I know enough to realize that witnesses were panicked that day and it was a rush of emotions and details become obscured through word of mouth. One person will see one thing while another will see another.

What we DO have is the evidence that something BIG descended from the sky leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. We see the hole in the pentagon that was indeed the right size for the aircraft to barrel through. We DO see debris from the plane. There is too much overwhelming evidence that it was a plane that crashed into the pentagon w/out needing eyewitness testimonies that I agree, can be flawed.

Originally posted by almighty bob


I realise that CIT has at least one witness to a plane flying away, Roosevelt Roberts, but since he has allegedly retracted, if not his story, then the CIT's right to publish it then this cannot be used as much more than hearsay.

Roosevelt Roberts has NOT retracted his story.

It was officially documented by the library of congress in 2001 and independently confirmed by us in May of this year.

Both accounts were recorded and presented in full.

After our initial call Roosevelt had agreed to an ADDITIONAL interview on camera in person but he changed his mind about that.

But he never retracted a single word he said and his first-hand account is not hear-say in the least.

Just wanted to be clear on this.

reply to post by justamomma


The difference between us is that I only accept independent verifiable evidence whereas you dismiss independent verifiable evidence based on nothing but pure unadulterated faith in what you have been told by the government.

You have provided zero evidence that a plane hit the building.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


So, you think that just because there are PEOPLE there who are part of the government, that I shouldn't believe the evidence that has come out?

I have two cousins who are part of the government. Should I not believe them? ARe they evil and automatically liars bc they are "government"?

reply to post by justamomma


Not at all.

Most of the witnesses we present work for the government.

If your cousins were witnesses to the plane their testimony would be just as valid as anybody's

But if they are not witnesses to the plane it is impossible for them to refute the independent evidence we present proving where the plane flew.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


One of them works for the pentagon and didn't see the plane hit, but heard it coming in. She may not be able to refute your witnesses, but you actually do a pretty damn good job of that yourself, yo!

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by almighty bob

 

I don't base what happened on the witness testimonies.

You cannot discount these witness testimonies without invalidating your stance as biased and presupposed. The evidence released, apart from these witnesses, was released by Government or Government related agencies. If there is the prospect of conspiracy, as the northside flightpath would indicate, all evidence produced by these agencies cannot be seen as impartial or unbiased. The eyewitness testimonies can be seen as such.

Originally posted by justamomma
I base it on the evidence that is there showing a plane crashed into the pentagon. I know enough to realize that witnesses were panicked that day and it was a rush of emotions and details become obscured through word of mouth. One person will see one thing while another will see another.

What we DO have is the evidence that something BIG descended from the sky leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. We see the hole in the pentagon that was indeed the right size for the aircraft to barrel through. We DO see debris from the plane. There is too much overwhelming evidence that it was a plane that crashed into the pentagon w/out needing eyewitness testimonies that I agree, can be flawed.

I agree, there is not enough from the testimony either way to show whether there was impact or not. But these people were rushed panicked and emotional. They may well be mistaken about the impact.

Which is interesting, because before the alleged impact, they would have seen a low flying plane. Certainly quite startling, and unusual, but not enough to induce panic and confusion (except for poor Boger who was pretty much in the flightpath) until you see the explosion at The Pentagon and come to the logical conclusion that the plane crashed there. This is where they would be rushed and panicked and more likely to be mistaken. This is in fact a very strong point to show that they are more likely to be correct about the path the flight was on than on whether it hit The Pentagon or not.

Again, the evidence of the official flightpath comes from a tainted source, that has a vested interest in the analysis and conclusion reached. These witnesses are independantly sourced and impartial, and while one person may be mistaken, here we have multiple verification from at least eleven witnesses, which is more than enough for valid corroboration of the northern flight path, until such time as greater evidence of the same value (that is, independant and impartial, unbiased witness testimony) is presented. Then the CIT northern flightpath claims can be more rationally and logically disputed.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by almighty bob]

Question:

How many of Ranke's witnesses that were in position to see a 757 plow into the Pentagon state that a 757 plowed into the Pentagon?

Answer:

All of them!










Aldo of CIT : "...the corpses were probably frozen cadavers"(paraphrasing)

And all of them were in a position to see the northside flightpath too. Just because one of the conclusions made by CIT seems to be erroneous, it does not in any way refute eyewitness testimony.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by almighty bob


I realise that CIT has at least one witness to a plane flying away, Roosevelt Roberts, but since he has allegedly retracted, if not his story, then the CIT's right to publish it then this cannot be used as much more than hearsay.

Roosevelt Roberts has NOT retracted his story.

It was officially documented by the library of congress in 2001 and independently confirmed by us in May of this year.

Both accounts were recorded and presented in full.

And there you go, there is even a witness to say that a flight departed the scene immediately following the explosion.

Originally posted by almighty bob
Just because one of the conclusions made by CIT seems to be erroneous,

The conclusion that is erroneous is that flight 77 magically flew over the Pentagon without anyone seeing it happen. Oh wait... that was the plan.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by almighty bob
Just because one of the conclusions made by CIT seems to be erroneous,

The conclusion that is erroneous is that flight 77 magically flew over the Pentagon without anyone seeing it happen. Oh wait... that was the plan.

The flight that was allegedly flight 77, yes. This does not invalidate or refute any of the eyewitness testimony to a flightpath north of Citgo. I have yet to see any valid, non-rhetorical, non-emotive, bias-free evidence to show otherwise.

Some here are playing a silly, sick, perverse, and despicable game.

I'll say it one more time. Any flight path for a Transport Category Aircraft to fly to the North of that Service Station IS AERONAUTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE when all of those "scientifically corroborated" witnesses are taken into account.

In order to make it even remotely plausible one or more witnesses must be IGNORED. Even then, the witnesses do not describe the bank angles required and do not describe the type of pull up required to fly over the building. CIT chooses to include all of them making their story an AERONAUTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

For those of you so impressed with the witnesses that you are willing to call all Government related sources of information fake or invalid, the Tribby Video and Looney Photographs are NOT GOVERNMENT SOURCES and they clearly show that the workers at the Arlington National Cemetery got the C-130 flight path WRONG. If they got the C-130 flight path WRONG, (they did) why can they be so right about AA77's flight path?

It's quite obvious that many of you would buy the CIT nonsense even if the entire incident had been video taped. It is available on Radar Tape and that proves that all of the physical and other evidence is VALID. To believe otherwise is a serious delusion. Enjoy your fantasies!

[edit on 29-9-2008 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Reheat
Some here are playing a silly, sick, perverse, and despicable game.

Emotive rhetoric.

Originally posted by Reheat
I'll say it one more time. Any flight path for a Transport Category Aircraft to fly to the North of that Service Station IS AERONAUTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE when all of those "scientifically corroborated" witnesses are taken into account.

In order to make it even remotely plausible one or more witnesses must be IGNORED. Even then, the witnesses do not describe the bank angles required and do not describe the type of pull up required to fly over the building. CIT chooses to include all of them making their story an AERONAUTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

It is unreasonable to expect the witnesses to be able to draw an exact flightpath, however the placement of the flight north of Citgo, given both the placement of the witnesses and their corroboration of this path, put it outside of any reasonable margin of error. You are confusing exact-pathing with relative placement.

As I stated in another post, when it comes to science, science being corroborated theory, observation trumps theory, so when multiple observations seem to contradict the science you have to at least consider that either the science is wrong or that the application of science is wrong.

What you are showing here is unsubstantiated opinion based on your own personal dogma, which is not a valid or unbiased argumentative stance.

Originally posted by Reheat

For those of you so impressed with the witnesses that you are willing to call all Government related sources of information fake or invalid, the Tribby Video and Looney Photographs are NOT GOVERNMENT SOURCES and they clearly show that the workers at the Arlington National Cemetery got the C-130 flight path WRONG. If they got the C-130 flight path WRONG, (they did) why can they be so right about AA77's flight path?

I haven't seen these, could you post a link to them please? That would be, depending on the context of the evidence, a valid counter to the CIT claims.

Edit: Never mind, I've found them. Will review.

Originally posted by Reheat
It's quite obvious that many of you would buy the CIT nonsense even if the entire incident had been video taped. It is available on Radar Tape and that proves that all of physical and other evidence is VALID. To believe otherwise is a serious delusion. Enjoy your fantasies!

And more emotive and belittling rhetoric. As I also stated before, the radar data cannot be considered as untainted, considering the source of its released.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by almighty bob]